What is this, Minnesota?

[lydy]

No one is disagreeing with me on the post "Who sawed Courtney's boat?" C'mon, people, where's the love?

Comments

[davidschroth.livejournal.com]

I don't recall reading anything I disagreed enough with to merit a comment...

And the answer might be Courtney, IIRC.

[kalmn.livejournal.com]

well, i still have no idea who sawed the damn boat, if it makes you feel better.

[lydy.livejournal.com]

*sigh* There you go, being rude again. :-) If you can't correct me, or explain something to me, the least you could do is disagree with me.

[lydy.livejournal.com]

I don't even fucking care who sawed Courtney's fucking boat. I just want somebody to argue with me. (I know, I know, that's down the hall.)

Ever since I've been involved in fandom, in-jokes have been a hot button on both sides, whether they're good, or they're bad, or they're stupid, yadda. It seems bloody unlikely that no one who reads my LJ disagrees with me. I realize that disagreeing isn't the same as correcting, but I'm starting to get a complex, here. I mean, if it were really this easy to mend fannish feuds, somebody's going to think of sending me to the Middle East, and I look really foolish in a flak jacket.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Maybe no one cares anymore.

K.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure this matters all that much, which is why you might not be getting much agreement or disagreement.

Just to use your example, I had no idea it was an in-joke. I've heard the line before, but I guess I thought it came from a song. I'm actually curious: what is the reference?

There are lots of social glues, and in-jokes are just one of them. I'm not sure they're even one of the important ones.

B

[huladavid.livejournal.com]

Oh okay.

You're wrong. Wrongwrongwrongwrongwrong!

(Geez, I'd better go back and find out what hell we're arguing about.)

[lydy.livejournal.com]

Wish it were true. Although, just at the moment, I'm getting it from the "insiders" why are worried that we're too exclusive.

[lydy.livejournal.com]

That's not an argument, that's a contradiction.

This seemed applicable, in a very oblique sense

[davidschroth.livejournal.com]

14. Good intentions are not enough. Few things are more painful than trying to do good and finding out that you've done a great deal of harm instead. Simple compassion and simple morality are inadequate in a complex world. The bumbling missionary causes tragedy because he follows his heart without using his head to try to understand the whole situation.

If you don't have a thoughtful plan that's based on a thorough understanding of the system -- and which has been subjected to critique by the affected parties, and shaken out in a couple of proof-of-concept test runs -- then do us all a favor and just keep your damn fingers out of the system entirely. Sometimes (more often than not, in fact), it's best just to leave even not-quite-well-enough alone.

From a post by Sara, at David Neiwart's blog Orcinus.

Mind you, it's not clear that I am capable of following the advice of leaving the not-quite-well-enough alone.

Re: This seemed applicable, in a very oblique sense

[lydy.livejournal.com]

It sounds like a rather optimistic view of the ability of people to see unforseen consequences before they are seen. I agree that simplistic morality and simplistic compassion are no excuse for thinking. But thinking only gets you so far, then you're back to trial and error. Leaving things alone is, of course, also an action, and that should not be ignored.

Sorry, just expanding and correcting to be polite. :-)